Surgical Technique in Constructing the Jejuno-jejunostomy and the Risk of Small Bowel Obstruction after Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass

Updates in Bariatric Surgery

Bariatric surgery is currently the most effective long-term treatment for morbid obesity as well as type-2 diabetes mellitus. The field of metabolic and bariatric surgery has seen tremendous growth over the past decade with dramatically reduced risks. This article aims to provide an update on bariatric surgery, highlighting the latest outcomes, improvements, and challenges in the field. Recently, the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) and the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) released a major update to the indications for bariatric surgery at BMI ≥35 kg/m2 regardless of co-morbidities and 30-34.9 kg/m2 with obesity-related comorbidities. Sleeve gastrectomy has emerged as the most popular bariatric procedure in the last 10 years with its remarkable efficacy and safety profile. The implementation of the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols have significantly improved the quality of care for all bariatric patients. The recent introduction and FDA approval of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists for chronic obesity has garnered significant media coverage and popularity, but no guidelines exist regarding its use in relation to bariatric surgery. This update underscores the need for tailored approaches, ongoing research, and the integration of evidence-based medicine and innovations to enhance patient care.

Comparison of Sleeve Gastrectomy vs Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) are widely used bariatric procedures for which comparative efficacy and safety remain unclear.

Objective

To compare perioperative outcomes in SG and RYGB.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this registry-based, multicenter randomized clinical trial (Bypass Equipoise Sleeve Trial), baseline and perioperative data for patients undergoing bariatric surgery from October 6, 2015, to March 31, 2022, were analyzed. Patients were from university, regional, county, and private hospitals in Sweden (n = 20) and Norway (n = 3). Adults (aged ≥18 years) eligible for bariatric surgery with body mass indexes (BMIs; calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of 35 to 50 were studied.

Interventions

Laparoscopic SG or RYGB.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Perioperative complications were analyzed as all adverse events and serious adverse events (Clavien-Dindo grade >IIIb). Ninety-day mortality was also assessed.

Results

A total of 1735 of 14 182 eligible patients (12%; 1282 [73.9%] female; mean (SD) age, 42.9 [11.1] years; mean [SD] BMI, 40.8 [3.7]) were included in the study. Patients were randomized and underwent SG (n = 878) or RYGB (n = 857). The mean (SD) operating time was shorter in those undergoing SG vs RYGB (47 [18] vs 68 [25] minutes; P < .001). The median (IQR) postoperative hospital stay was 1 (1-1) day in both groups. The 30-day readmission rate was 3.1% after SG and 4.0% after RYGB (P = .33). There was no 90-day mortality. The 30-day incidence of any adverse event was 40 (4.6%) and 54 (6.3%) in the SG and RYGB groups, respectively (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.47-1.08; P = .11). Corresponding figures for serious adverse events were 15 (1.7%) for the SG group and 23 (2.7%) for the RYGB group (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.33-1.22; P = .19).

Conclusions and Relevance

This randomized clinical trial of 1735 patients undergoing primary bariatric surgery found that both SG and RYGB were performed with a low perioperative risk without clinically significant differences between groups.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02767505.

Do all roads lead to Rome?: A retrospective analysis on surgical technique in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

BACKGROUND

New York University Langone Health has three accredited bariatric centers, with altogether ten different bariatric surgeons. This retrospective analysis compares individual surgeon techniques in laparoscopic or robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) to identify potential associations with perioperative morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

All adult patients who underwent RYGB between 2017 and 2021 at NYU Langone Health campuses were evaluated via electronic medical records and MBSAQIP 30-day follow-up data. We surveyed all ten practicing bariatric surgeons to analyze the relationship between their techniques and total adverse outcomes. Bleeding, SSI, mortality, readmission, and reoperation were specifically sub-analyzed via logistic regression.

RESULTS

54 (7.59%) out of 711 patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic RYGB encountered an adverse outcome. Lower adverse outcomes were observed with laparoscopic approach, creating the JJ anastomosis first, flat positioning, division of the mesentery, Covidien™ laparoscopic staplers, gold staples, unidirectional JJ anastomosis, hand-sewn common enterotomy, 100-cm Roux limb, 50-cm biliopancreatic limb, and routine EGD. Lower bleeding rates were observed with flat positioning, gold staples, hand-sewn common enterotomy, 50-cm biliopancreatic limb, and routine EGD. Lower readmission rates were observed in laparoscopic, flat positioning, Covidien™ staplers, unidirectional JJ anastomosis, and hand-sewn common enterotomy. Gold staples had lower reoperation rates. Otherwise, there was no statistically significant difference in SSI.

CONCLUSION

Certain surgical techniques in RYGB within our bariatric surgery group had significant effects on the rates of total adverse outcomes, bleeding, readmission, and reoperation. Our findings warrant further investigation into the aforementioned techniques via multivariate regression models or prospective study design.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by the inherent nature of its retrospective and univariate statistical design. We did not account for the interaction between techniques. The sample size of surgeons was small, and follow-up of 30 days was relatively short. We did not include patient characteristics in the model or control for surgeon skill.